After arriving in South Carolina via an overland coffle of slaves in chains, the former slave Charles Ball recalled how “in the State of Maryland, my master had been called a negro buyer, or Georgia trader, sometimes a negro driver; but here, I found that he was elevated to the rank of merchant, and a merchant of the first order too; for it was very clear that in the opinion of the landlord, no branch of trade was more honourable than the traffic in us poor slaves.” Moreover, according to the person who housed them, Ball’s trader was “a public benefactor, and entitled to the respect and gratitude of every friend of the South.”1
There was much truth in this South Carolinian landlord’s viewpoint, at least as far as the white South was concerned. Many slave traders were merchants of the first order, who possessed important marketing skills that most slave owners found useful. Few were the slaveholders who did not seek the aid of these businessmen at least once when necessary. Slave traders likewise provided an important service to the region by introducing elements of the nation’s emerging market economy into Southern society. Often encompassed under the umbrella term, “market revolution,” the first half of the nineteenth century witnessed a major transformation in American life, with advances in transportation, communications, and industry, as well as the creation of new regional and national markets. One of the most important engines driving this development in the South was the new domestic slave trade and its creation of a region-wide market in slaves. As with the market revolution in the North, this traffic, and especially the men who operated it, helped to encourage market activity in all subregions of the South and make speculation in commodities a greater part of people’s everyday lives.2
It is hard to overemphasize the crucial role that slave traders played in the economic development of the South. Most important, they infused a signifi-cant amount of capital into the Southern economy each year. Between 1820 and 1860, interregional slave traders averaged roughly $11 million worth of sales each year. To conduct their businesses, they relied upon an array of supporting personnel, such as bankers, factorage houses, lawyers, doctors, clothiers, provisioners, blacksmiths, insurance companies, and shipping agents. This ancillary activity drew more people into the marketplace and pumped at least another $1.5 million into the Southern economy each year. In the four decades preceding the Civil War, the interregional slave trade generated, on average, more than $12.5 million worth of business each year (and roughly $18 million each year during the 1850s). Furthermore, unlike the money that came from the production of cotton, which only flowed into certain subregions of the South, the cash associated with the slave trade poured into every county in the slaveholding states.3
Many of the men who made their living by buying and selling slaves also ventured into other aspects of the new market economy. While it was common for slave traders to work as farmers or planters during the off-season, a large number of them engaged in other business activities, such as owning general stores and buying and selling other types of commodities. Not only did they speculate in humans, but slave traders bought and sold real estate, livestock, bonds, and all types of stock, including bank, railroad, telegraph, insurance, and manufacturing. The versatility of such men can be seen in the report that the credit agency R. G. Dun & Co. gave of the South Carolinian Thomas Weatherly, calling him “quite a bold speculator. Besides merchandise he deals in slaves, Kentucky horses, mules and swine” and “is decidedly a man of bus[iness] talents.”4
Many of the more successful slave traders likewise played leading roles in diversifying market development in the South. In New Orleans, the former butcher turned leading slave auctioneer Joseph Beard was a part-owner of the New Orleans Commercial Bulletin, the city’s foremost commercial newspaper. Others promoted internal improvements. In North Carolina, the former slave trader Joseph Totten became the president of a local turnpike company; in Virginia, Francis Rives used his slave-trading wealth and political influence to build and manage railroads. Some even became important entrepreneurs and venture capitalists. By the time of his death in 1853, the South Carolinian and former slave trader John Springs III had one of the more extensive investment portfolios in the nation. Among other things, he was an early investor in the largest textile mill in the South.5
In no Southern city did slave traders play a more prominent role in supporting the new market economy than Charleston, South Carolina. During the 1850s, traders Thomas Ryan, Thomas Gadsden, Philip Porcher, and T. S. Heyward all served as directors or vice presidents of banks; Porcher also served as a director of the Santee Canal Company. Traders Louis DeSaussure and Alonzo White served as directors of the Charleston Gas Light Company. The economic success of slave traders likewise allowed them to play a major role in the city’s social and benevolent societies. Porcher and DeSaussure were stewards at the Charleston Jockey Club, and fellow trader Ziba Oakes was a prominent Mason and Odd Fellow. He served on both the Committee of Charity and the Committee of the Cemetery for the city’s Masonic Grand Lodge, as well as being the Grand Treasurer for his local lodge; in addition, he was an officer for the city’s Grand Lodge of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows.6
This image of modern, entrepreneurial businessmen and prominent social figures is not the one that comes to mind when most people today think of Southern slave traders. The common stereotype is that of the fictional trader Dan Haley in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852). As Stowe portrayed him, Haley was an uncouth and unprincipled man who, according to one character, “would sell his own mother at a good per centage—not wishing the old woman any harm either.” This caricature of slave traders as unscrupulous peddlers had acceptance in both the antebellum North and South. For Northerners, the slave trader came to symbolize all of the evils associated with the Southern slave system, especially turning of human beings into property, or things, that could be bought and sold at will. Therefore, these men, along with the domestic slave trade in general, played an important role in the abolitionist attack against slavery.7
Southern slave owners likewise expressed their abhorrence of this individual, at least in the abstract. Their professed contempt for the slave trader, however, had more to do with the need to defend their slave system to the outside world than with any real uneasiness about the transactions they performed. During the nineteenth century most Southern slave owners saw their human property as valuable commodities and willingly bought and sold tens of thousands of these people each year. They also frequently employed the services of professional slave traders to help them increase their profits. Still, to defend their system from abolitionist attacks, especially those concerning the buying and selling of slaves, Southern slaveholders created a stereotyped slave trader, a fantasized individual, whom they could blame for these sales. This supposedly manipulative social outcast became the perfect scapegoat for all of the system’s ills. Slave owners liked to present the view that they themselves were loving paternalists who never parted with their black families (slaves); however, since a certain number of sales could not be denied, they claimed that a handful of bad apples (slave traders) sometimes forced them to part with their people against their will. Luckily, according to the slave owners, these evil slave traders were always few in number and only marginal to the Southern slave system. They were likewise of the lowest social classes and shunned by polite society.8
Unfortunately, the prevalence of this stereotype, as well as the deplorable nature of this business, has continued to influence our view of the men who worked in this trade. Moreover, our tendency to speak of the slave trader in generic terms perpetuates the idea that these men were somehow all the same. By doing so, we continue our own misleading stereotype about these men. In fact, slave traders were not all the same. They came from all parts of the South and from all social classes in society, from the wealthiest, oldest families to the most hardscrabble backgrounds on the western frontier. It is also impossible to describe their “typical” work activities. Some had offices in cities, others were itinerants who drifted from place to place, and many worked as brokers, auctioneers, financiers, or slave hirers. Simply put, slave traders were as varied as the “typical” merchant. Subsequently, their place in Southern society was based not on their occupation, but mostly on their social class. There is no denying that there were thousands of men who fit the stereotype as depicted by Harriet Beecher Stowe. Many of these men were of the lower classes, some even swindlers and outright criminals. Naturally, they were looked down upon by most respectable people in Southern society. But there were also men, like the individuals in Charleston, who traveled in the uppermost circles of their communities. While these latter individuals constituted only a tiny fraction of the people who made their living from the slave trade, they always remained their industry’s leaders. This proved true not only in the number of slaves they handled each year but also in their introduction into the trade of modern business practices. They were among their region’s pioneers in market development; smaller and midsized traders who strived to be successful adapted their commercial innovations.9
Therefore, instead of fitting a misleading if comforting stereotype, slave traders varied considerably and included many individuals who were leading advocates for the new business practices and values associated with the market revolution. These men created a region-wide market, connecting those areas of the upper South that had a surplus of slaves with those parts of the lower South where slaves were more in demand. They took advantage of all the new innovations in transportation and communications, and introduced many of the new business practices that were revolutionizing American society at the time. These included developing complex, urban-based enterprises; improving accounting techniques for recording profits; and classifying slaves of differing ages, sexes, and abilities into standardized commodities for easier purchase and retail. They stimulated sales through their creative marketing practices and customer service. Most important, their effective use of advertising not only sold thousands of men, women, and children each year but also helped to increase the desire for, and dependence upon, cash in Southern society. Their successful business activity encouraged even more Southerners to speculate in this valuable commodity, providing them with capital to expand their investments in other markets.10
The slave-trading firm that best exemplified these new market values and proved to be the most successful in implementing them was Franklin & Armfield. Founded by Isaac Franklin and John Armfield in 1828, by the time the elder Franklin retired in 1835 their company and its affiliates had become one of the largest business operations of any kind in the South, far surpassing all but the largest cotton or sugar plantations in annual revenue. While their actual income is impossible to know, in 1834 the firm held $400,000 in accounts receivable, an especially high figure considering that most slave traders liked to sell for cash or easily convertible paper. At the time of Franklin’s retirement, Armfield was said to be worth $500,000, and contemporaries referred to Franklin as a millionaire, which was probably true.11
Like other large businesses in the new market economy, the firm understood the importance of trustworthiness in attracting customers. Franklin & Armfield established elaborate urban offices at both ends of its operation. Armfield controlled the purchasing of slaves in Alexandria, which at that time was still in the District of Columbia. He then shipped the slaves to Franklin, who did the selling in New Orleans, Louisiana, and in Natchez, Mississippi, the two most important slave-trading centers in the lower Mississippi River valley. By making themselves permanent members of their communities, these traders developed confidence in their customers, who subsequently felt more comfortable bringing them their business.12
Franklin & Armfield’s most entrepreneurial business innovation involved purchasing and operating its own vessels in the coastal trade. In the beginning, the company provided shipping service on boats initially owned by others. The firm, however, quickly recognized the financial advantages of owning its own vessels and reinvested its profits to purchase three brigs: the Tribune, the Uncas, and the self-titled Isaac Franklin, which it had constructed expressly for this trade. Eliminating the middlemen not only cut the partners’ charges for shipping but also gave them an advantage in the buying market. The money that was saved on transportation allowed Franklin & Armfield to offer more for its purchases than did its competitors and still make a profit.13
One major reason for Franklin & Armfield’s success was its adaptation of a shipping innovation that was transforming business practice in the North; the firm offered the relatively new service of “packet lines.” The first American packet line was the Black Ball Line, which began regular service between New York City and Liverpool in 1818. Franklin & Armfield was one of the first businesses in the South to offer this service, beginning in 1833. Unlike the method of previous vessels, which did not sail until they had a full cargo, a packet line was guaranteed to sail at a specified date, whether it was full or not. Naturally, this led to some cut in profits since few of the company’s boats sailed full. The Tribune was capable of holding up to 180 slaves (100 men and 80 women), but most of the firm’s ships left port with only 75–100 on board. Rarely did the cargo exceed 150. But the partners made up for this loss in revenue by attracting more customers with their reliable shipping schedules.14
Franklin & Armfield also drew customers for its packets with effective advertising. Notices reassured patrons that its boats were “all vessels of the first class, commanded by experienced and accommodating officers” and that every effort would be “used to promote the interest of shippers and comfort of passengers.” The success of Franklin & Armfield’s packet service can be seen in the rapid growth of its fleet, as well as in the increased frequency with which the ships sailed. In 1833, its advertisements stated that its boats would leave Alexandria “every thirty days throughout the shipping season,” which began in October and lasted until April. Two years later, the partners moved their schedule to start service on September 1 and announced that one of their “Alexandria and New Orleans Packets” would “leave this port on the 1st and 15th of each month throughout the season.”15
As with other expanding American businesses during the market revolution, Franklin & Armfield maintained a series of complex business relationships to help run their extensive enterprise. Isaac Franklin’s nephew James Franklin was brought in to assist his uncle in the two main selling markets. At the other end, Armfield supervised a wide network of purchasing agents. By 1833, in addition to several part-time buyers, the company had set up permanent agents in Richmond, Warrenton, and Fredericksburg, Virginia, and in Frederick, Baltimore, Annapolis, Easton, and Port Tobacco, Maryland. Most of these buyers worked on commission. To further increase its purchasing ability, Franklin & Armfield formed a subsidiary-like company with one of its agents, Rice Ballard. This new company was a branch of the larger firm, in which Ballard purchased slaves in Richmond (employing agents of his own) and then sold them through Franklin in the southwest under the name of Franklin, Ballard & Co. After Franklin’s retirement in 1835, the firm reorganized with Ballard moving to Natchez to take on the selling responsibilities until the company eventually dissolved in 1841.16
While few slave traders matched the success of Franklin & Armfield, most mirrored their adaptation of the new business practices associated with the nation’s market transformation. Especially important were new shipping innovations brought about by the transportation revolution. Although most did not possess their own ships, some traders working near the port cities of the Chesapeake, who had previously transported their slaves to the lower South by overland coffle, found it more convenient to ship their human cargo on ocean-going vessels owned by others in the coastal trade. For traders in the lower Mississippi River valley, the most significant development was the arrival of steamboats during the 1820s. Most large traders in that region, such as John White from Missouri, used these vessels to transport the hundreds of Missouri, Kentucky, and Virginia slaves that they and their agents bought each year to Louisiana and other states in the Deep South. But numerous small-scale traders also made their journeys on steamboats, often stopping in riverbank towns along the way to sell their human goods.17
By the 1840s and 1850s, many speculators had also begun transporting their slaves on the region’s emerging railroad lines. This advance in technology proved a real boon to slave traders, as it cut both costs and travel time. On Southern trains, slaves rode for half price (the same as children), and most trains carried a “nigger car,” which often doubled as the freight or baggage car. One indication of the effect that railroads had on slashing shipping times can be found in the message a trader in southern Virginia sent to his partner in Alabama. Despite having to travel to Richmond first, Philip Thomas could still expect that “in 8 days after I leave home I will be in Montgomery with a fresh lot of negroes.” This was almost one-third the time it took via the coastal trade and at least six weeks faster than the premodern and inefficient overland coffle. One month later, Thomas noted that he made the return trip home from Montgomery to Richmond in just fifty-five hours.18
Slave traders likewise capitalized on the latest developments in communication, in particular the telegraph, invented in 1844. One of the biggest problems for American businesses before this advancement was the delay in conveying information to associates in other locations. Companies had to depend upon the speed and reliability of the mail or personal couriers, which could often take days, if not weeks, to relay important information. This proved especially troublesome for region-wide businesses like the slave trade, where profits depended upon knowing the latest prices in both the buying and selling markets. As a result, interregional traders continually corresponded with one another to obtain this information and complained when it was not provided to them on time. As one North Carolina trader admonished his partner in New Orleans: “Write often as the times is Criticle & it depends on the prices you get to Govern me in buying.”19
As telegraph lines spread across the South, slave traders jumped at the opportunity to use this invention to confirm the receipt of letters or money, to inform their partners of their whereabouts, and to decide whether or not to buy another lot and at what price. It even allowed them to assess the profit-ability of specific purchases. After informing his partner in Alabama of some field hands for sale, one Virginia trader wanted to know if they would turn a profit at their asking price, adding, if so “Telegraph me and I will buy them, if not do not Telegraph and I will understand not to buy.” While the availability of the telegraph was limited to those areas with telegraph offices, which naturally benefited the larger urban firms, all traders made use of it whenever possible.20
In addition to taking advantage of all the new innovations in transportation and communication, slave traders employed modern accounting practices to record their transactions. Unlike the majority of planters, who merely kept lists of local debts and credits, many slave traders adopted the relatively new method of double-entry bookkeeping for the most accurate accounts. While this technique had been around for centuries, it gained wide acceptance among American businessmen during the early nineteenth century, and Southern speculators proved no exception. In fact, they often paid careful attention to these records. The Savannah dealer William Parker once complained that he had “Been Busy all day looking after 2 cents in the Balance of my Ledger.” They also made sure their employees followed suit, and more than one agent had to promise his boss that he would “keep a strict account of all your loosses & Proffitts.”21
Southern slave traders likewise made frequent use of the financial instruments of the new market economy. Most important, they constantly sought funding from banks to finance their operations and extended their own network of credit to customers. Most speculators preferred to sell their slaves for cash, in part to pay off their own loans but also to avoid the difficulties of collection. Typical was the trader in Mississippi who did “not expect to be able to collect more than 1/3 or 1/2” of his notes. Yet by necessity they were often forced to accept promissory notes if they wanted to make sufficient sales. As one Alabama trader advised, “A good note with interest ought not to be refused.” Some traders even capitalized on this practice. Bernard Kendig of New Orleans became quite successful through his liberal credit policies, as did Walter Campbell, another dealer in that city, who began his early advertisements under the heading “Long Credit Sale of Negroes.” Speculators then used the cash and commercial paper that they received to pay off their own loans and to obtain more credit to acquire the cash to purchase more slaves.22
Furthermore, slave traders had to have a good understanding of the nation’s money markets. At a time when the country’s main form of currency consisted of discounted bank notes, they had to keep track of the comparative value of the various drafts, in order to deal in those with the greatest acceptability. For that reason, whenever possible, they favored paper from major Northern banks, which generally held its value better nationally than that from local Southern banks. As one Nashville trader remarked after sending his partner some sight drafts on a New York bank, “They are the best funds and safe to Remit.” To be successful, then, Southern slave traders needed to follow not only the price of cotton but all of the nation’s financial markets as well. Commenting on this occupational habit, a Memphis newspaper noted that one local trader did not speak much about his personal life, but became “very animated on the subjects of dollars, negroes and cotton.”23
Southern speculators also protected themselves against unexpected loss by taking out insurance policies on the men and women in their stock. A number of traders bought policies when shipping slaves to the Deep South by sea. Others insured against losses when transporting their cargos down American rivers. While marine insurance had been around for a long time, some traders also began protecting themselves against losses caused by sickness and disease. They took out life insurance policies on their slaves, a relatively new financial instrument that had become popular in the South by the 1840s, an indication of how valuable slave property had become by that time. After noting that it was “very sickly here among negroes, 1 or 2 dies every day,” the Richmond trader Philip Thomas informed his partner that he was “having all I by [buy] insured.” A few even used this protection as a selling point. After announcing his arrival in Natchez with 100 slaves from Virginia and Tennessee, R. H. Elam added that “there is also a Life Insurance on them for twelve months, with policies transferable.”24
As participants in a long-distance commodity market, where profits were dependent upon prices in divergent parts of the South, speculators likewise needed a way to communicate with their colleagues about the state of one another’s markets. Like other brokers in the new market economy, slave traders had to categorize their human merchandise so they could accurately compare their information. Usually this was done by sorting people into classes, such as first-, second-, or third-rate men and women, with boys and girls normally divided according to age or height. One Richmond firm, D. M. Pulliam & Co., even broke the market into twenty different categories, with everything from “No. 1 MEN, Extra” down to “Scrubs,” a term that traders used to refer to the elderly, diseased, physically handicapped, or other hard-to-sell individuals.25
Finally, Southern speculators made extensive use of advertising to market and purchase their human commodities. One reason for slave traders’ success in the exporting states was their heavy reliance upon cash when acquiring their merchandise. In a world where most business transactions were conducted on credit, slave traders were one of the few groups in the South who dealt primarily in cash. Consequently, that became their main selling point. Throughout the upper South, traders filled the newspapers with long-running, bold-type advertisements that blared this point home. “CASH FOR NEGROES” or “NEGROES WANTED” were the most common headings, but the more innovative dealers grabbed readers’ attention with phrases like “WHO WANTS CASH!” “HIGHEST CASH PRICE” or simply “CASH! CASH!! CASH!!!”26
While all traders stressed the promise of cash when advertising for slaves, they also needed to make their notices stand out from those of their competitors. One dealer on the Eastern Shore of Maryland emphasized his reliability, assuring customers that he was “permanently settled in this market, and at all times will give the highest cash prices.” Virtually all traders claimed to offer the highest prices. One St. Louis dealer, Thomas Dickens, played upon these assertions, warning potential sellers to “test the market by giving every buyer a chance, and not rely upon advertisements that profess to pay more than others. We know that we can and will pay as high prices as any other person or persons.” The majority of traders likewise pledged responses to all inquiries. In Missouri, the St. Louis firm of Blakey & McAfee was even “prepared to visit persons wanting to sell in any part of the State.”27
Upon arrival in the lower South, successful traders employed creative advertising to sell their slaves. Almost all notices began with bold-type headings, such as “SLAVES FOR SALE” or “NEW ARRIVAL OF NEGROES.” As in the upper South, there were those who tried to stand out with headings like “COME ONE AND ALL WHO WANT NEGROES” and “GREAT EXCITEMENT!! FOUR HUNDRED SLAVES EXPECTED TO ARRIVE BY FIRST NOVEMBER.” Others took a simpler but equally effective approach, blaring “SLAVES! SLAVES!! SLAVES!!!” or “NEGROES! NEGROES! MORE NEGROES!”28
In their notices, speculators did everything they could to attract business. Like in the exporting states, some stressed their reliability and trustworthiness. Joseph Bruin of New Orleans emphasized that he had been “a regular trader in this city for the last twenty six years.” Others in the market went out of their way to accommodate customers. Womack & Martin offered to save patrons a trip, suggesting that “planters wishing to purchase can have their orders filled upon advantageous terms without coming to the city, should they prefer to do so.” Conversely, John Smith took his slaves to the planters, advertising that he would “be at Donaldsonville, La., on September 20th, with 100 likely Virginia and Carolina NEGROES.” And there were always some who appealed to buyers’ pocketbooks. In Natchez, R. H. Elam operated “on the principle that a ‘quick penny is better than a slow shilling,’” while the Nashville dealer Reese Porter claimed that he would “sell so cheap you will hardly know the difference between buying and hiring.”29
Attracting potential customers with good advertising was one thing; getting them to buy was another matter. Or, as one experienced dealer in Savannah put it: “Buyers are like horses, you can offer the bucket but can ‘t make them drink.” Therefore, traders also needed to be good salesmen and work their customers to make a sale. This aspect of the business was best expressed by the former slave Charles Ball, who noted that the speculator who bought him “regarded the southern planters as no less the subjects of trade and speculation, than the slaves he sold to them.” Some traders did this by offering special arrangements. In the upper South, they persuaded owners to sell by paying cash during the summer months and letting them keep their slaves until after the crop had been harvested in the fall. Or, they let buyers take an individual home on trial before actually purchasing. Others worked their customers by befriending them with charm and alcohol. Frederick Douglass described the traders he saw in Maryland as “generally well dressed men, and very captivating in their manners. Ever ready to drink, to treat, and to gamble.” The former slave William Wells Brown observed that the speculator he worked for “always put up at the best hotel, and kept his wines in his room, for the accommodation of those who called to negotiate with him for the purchase of slaves.”30
For many slave traders, especially those at the lower end of the trade, working their customers also involved outright trickery and deception. As the former slave John Brown noted, “There are ‘nigger jockeys’ as well as horse jockeys, and as many tricks are played off to sell a bad or an unsound ‘nigger,’ as there are to palm off a diseased horse.” The most common tactics were fixing up older individuals to look young and outfitting slaves in new clothes. Almost all traders believed that their merchandise would “sell much better for being well dressed,” and this was usually the case but not always. At least one man had to inform his client that he “dressed up your negroes and made them look their best but could not screw them up any higher.”31 While such practices might be expected, other traders engaged in much less socially acceptable acts and pawned off individuals with known health problems as sound. One trader in Richmond considered purchasing a “naked headed girl” at a discount, believing that he could “put a fals set of hair on her and sell her for as mutch as if she had it growing.” Another buyer in Alabama came home with his new purchase only to find “that the fellow had no toes on his feet.” The seller had “cunningly stuffed” cotton in the front of the man’s shoes “for show.”32
Because of the reputation that slave traders had for engaging in such unsavory practices, a number of dealers used creative advertising to help improve their public image as honest businessmen. Nathan Bedford Forrest assured customers in Memphis that “that which we promise or say, we guarantee,” while, in New Orleans, Thomas Foster made it clear that he conducted his “business in a proper and Strictly Moral manner.” Even in tiny Lumpkin, Georgia, J. F. Moses advertised that “being a regular trader to this market he has nothing to gain by misrepresentation, and will, therefore, warrant every negro sold to come up to the bill, squarely and completely.” Many speculators also listed references in their advertisements. When the firm of Mosely & Spragins opened a new slave depot in Alexandria, Louisiana, they let it be known that they had “been trading in the Mississippi market for a number of years—and can give the most satisfactory New Orleans references as to their responsibility and character.” While most mentioned only local firms, some stressed their national reputation, such as the New Orleans dealer Seneca Bennet, who listed men in Baltimore, Mobile, Norfolk, Charleston, and New Orleans in his notice.33
Leading traders consciously strove to project a positive image in their day-to-day dealings with the public. They dressed and conducted themselves in a professional manner. A visitor to John Armfield’s office called him “a man of fine personal appearance, and of engaging and graceful manners,” while a former Northerner living in Natchez described Isaac Franklin as “a man of gentlemanly address, as are many of these merchants, and not the ferocious, Captain Kidd looking fellows, we Yankees have been apt to imagine them.” One visitor to Richmond even noted that the slave auctioneer he met there was “a most respectable-looking person” and “so far as dress is concerned, he might pass for a clergyman or church-warden.” Many traders also knew the importance of good customer service. Several were thanked by their clients for their “promptness and Punctuality,” and, at least according to his court testimony, one agent working in a New Orleans depot had been instructed by his employer “never to misrepresent negroes and to exchange them any time rather than go to a law suit.”34
As a result of this public-relations effort, most of the leading slave traders managed to create a reputation of honor and respect. One visitor to Alexandria noted that John Armfield “bears a good character, and is considered a charitable man,” while another traveler to that city believed that Armfield had “acquired the confidence of all the neighboring country, by his resolute efforts to prevent kidnapping, and by his honorable mode of dealing.” This same reliable observer had earlier visited Austin Woolfolk, a leading dealer in Baltimore, remarking that “the business is conducted by him, and by the other regular traders, in such a manner, that there is never any suspicion of unfairness in regard to their mode of acquiring slaves. In this respect, at least, their business is conducted in an honorable manner.” It is important to remember that the vast majority of speculators were not leading traders, nor did they have the same resources or abilities to create such positive public images. In fact, many could have cared less about what others thought of them. Yet, the most successful and market-savvy traders all knew the importance of effective advertising, to promote both their businesses and themselves.35
Therefore, while there were plenty of Southern slave traders who fit the commonly held stereotype of such men, there were also many others who resembled modern businessmen. They knew that hard work, a willingness to take risks, and mastery over a new set of commercial skills were the surest way to financial success in the increasingly market-driven American economy. The motivations that attracted these men to the slave trade were not so different from those that drew other men into the business world in the North. They recognized that changes in transportation and communications had revolutionized the way that business could now be conducted. The scale at which their enterprises operated also demanded new practices, like modern accounting techniques and standardization of commodities for easier purchase and retail. They understood the importance of creative marketing tools, especially the effective use of advertising, to increase the demand for their goods and services. And they took pride in their abilities as good salesmen.
Of course, the product these men were selling was not textiles or shoes but enslaved human beings. That is a fact that should never be forgotten. The impact that this trade had on the men and women who were its commodities was unconscionable and the devastating effects it had on them (and the nation) would linger for generations. For Americans today, such traffic seems impossible to understand. Yet, it is important to remember that this country had always held slaves; as property, they had always been bought and sold. The explosion of economic activity that transformed the nation in the early republic affected all forms of property, including slaves. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that this development also led to a heightened commodification of that property and to more effective and pervasive speculation in that commodity by both professional traders and slave owners alike. It was all part of the market revolution that modernized American society in the first half of the nineteenth century.
NOTES
1. Charles Ball, Slavery in the United States: A Narrative of the Life and Adventures of Charles Ball, a Black Man (New York: J. S. Taylor, 1837), 86–87.
2. For works discussing the role that slave traders played in promoting the Southern economy, see Edmund L. Drago, ed., Broke by the War: Letters of a Slave Trader (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1991), 9; Steven Deyle, Carry Me Back: The Domestic Slave Trade in American Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), chap. 4. For other works on the domestic slave trade, see Frederic Bancroft, Slave Trading in the Old South (1931; repr., New York: Unger, 1959); Michael Tadman, Speculators and Slaves: Masters, Traders, and Slaves in the Old South (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989); Walter Johnson, Soul by Soul: Life Inside the Antebellum Slave Market (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999); Robert H. Gudmestad, A Troublesome Commerce: The Transformation of the Interstate Slave Trade (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2003). For newer work being done on the domestic slave trade, see the essays in Walter Johnson, ed., The Chattel Principle: Internal Slave Trades in the Americas (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2004).
3. For a full discussion of the determination of these estimates, see Deyle, Carry Me Back, 139–140.
4. Dun & Co. report from the early 1850s, quoted in Michael Tadman, “The Hidden History of Slave Trading in Antebellum South Carolina: John Springs III and Other ‘Gentlemen Dealing in Slaves,’” South Carolina Historical Magazine 97 (January 1996): 17.
5. Tadman, Speculators and Slaves, 192–199; Richard Tansey, “Bernard Kendig and the New Orleans Slave Trade,” Louisiana History 23 (Spring 1982): 168–169; receipt, July 24, 1855, Totten Papers, North Carolina State Archives, Raleigh (hereafter cited as NCSA); Tadman, “Hidden History of Slave Trading,” 6–29; Lacy K. Ford, “The Tale of Two Entrepreneurs in the Old South: John Springs III and Hiram Hutchison of the South Carolina Upcountry,” South Carolina Historical Magazine 95 (July 1994): 198–224.
6. The Charleston City and General Business Directory for 1855 (Charleston, S.C.: David Gazlay, 1855), appendix:19–34; Mears & Trunbull, The Charleston Directory Containing the Names of the Inhabitants, a Subscribers’ Business Directory, Street Maps of the City, with an Appendix, of Much Useful Information (Charleston, S.C.: Walker, Evans, 1859), 250–251, 275; Directory of the City of Charleston, to which is added a Business Directory, 1860 (Charleston, S.C.: Ferslew, 1860), 33–36.
7. Harriet Beecher Stowe, Uncle Tom’s Cabin; or, Life among the Lowly, ed. Ann Douglas (1852; repr., New York: Penguin, 1981), 86.
8. Deyle, Carry Me Back, chaps. 6–7.
9. Ibid., chap. 4.
10. For a sampling of works exploring other types of market development in the antebellum South, see Jonathan D. Martin, Divided Mastery: Slave Hiring in the Antebellum South (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004); Jonathan Daniel Wells, The Origins of the Southern Middle Class, 1800–1861 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004); Frank J. Byrne, Becoming Bourgeois: Merchant Culture in the South, 1820–1865 (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2006); Tom Downey, Planting a Capitalist South: Masters, Merchants, and Manufacturers in the Southern Interior, 1790–1860 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2006); and L. Diane Barnes, Artisan Workers in the Upper South: Petersburg, Virginia, 1820–1865 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2008).
11. Isaac Franklin to R. C. Ballard, March 10, 1834, Rice C. Ballard Papers, Southern Historical Collection, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; Deyle, Carry Me Back, chap. 4.
12. Wendell H. Stephenson, Isaac Franklin: Slave Trader and Planter of the Old South (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1938), chaps. 2–3; Isabel Howell, “John Armfield, Slave-Trader,” Tennessee Historical Quarterly 2 (March 1943): 3–29; Gudmestad, Troublesome Commerce, chap. 1.
13. [Alexandria] Phenix Gazette, October 8, 1828, December 11, 1829, December 18, 1830, February 25, 1831, November 3, 1831, February 15, 1833, April 16, 1833, October 5, 1833, and July 14, 1835; [Washington, D.C.] National Intelligencer November 7, 1836, and February 18, 1837.
14. [Alexandria] Phenix Gazette, January 4, 1833. For a good account of the transforming effect that packet lines had on the American economy, especially in the North, see George R. Taylor, The Transportation Revolution, 1815–1860 (New York: Rinehart, 1951), 104–107.
15. [Alexandria] Phenix Gazette, October 5, 1833, and July 14, 1835.
16. [Alexandria] Phenix Gazette, August 27, 1833. When the firm reorganized in 1835, it took the names Armfield, Franklin & Co. (in Alexandria) and Ballard, Franklin & Co., (in New Orleans and Natchez). Both firms dissolved on November 10, 1841. Articles of Agreement, March 15, 1831, and July 10, 1835, Rice C. Ballard Papers, Southern Historical Collection, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; Stephenson, Isaac Franklin, 67.
17. John R. White, Slave Record Book (1846–1860), Chinn Collection, Missouri Historical Society, St. Louis; William Wells Brown, Narrative of William W. Brown, a Fugitive Slave (Boston: Anti-Slavery Office, 1847), chap. 6.
18. Philip Thomas to William Finney, October 6 and November 8, 1859, Finney Papers, Perkins Library, Duke University, Durham, N.C. (hereafter cited as DU); Eugene Alvarez, Travel on Southern Antebellum Railroads, 1828–1860 (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1974), 118, 134–137.
19. G. W. Barnes to T. Freeman, November 16, 1839, Slave Trade Papers, Boston Public Library.
20. Philip Thomas to William Finney, January 24, 1859, Finney Papers, DU.
21. Entry for January 2, 1860, Parker Diary, Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library, University of Georgia, Athens; G. W. Eutsler to [Elias Ferguson], August 16, 1856, Ferguson Papers, NCSA; Patricia C. Cohen, A Calculating People: The Spread of Numeracy in Early America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 176.
22. Joseph Meek to Samuel Logan, October 9, 1836, Meek Papers, Virginia Historical Society, Richmond; John Forsyth to Henderson Forsyth, February 19, 1837, Forsyth Papers, DU; Tansey, “Bernard Kendig,” 166–167; [New Orleans] Daily Picayune, December 4, 1853.
23. Joseph Meek to Samuel Logan, March 19, 1835, Meek Papers, Virginia Historical Society, Richmond; Memphis Appeal, December 4, 1857.
24. Thomas to William Finney, January 24, 1859, Finney Papers, DU; [Vidalia, La.] Concordia Intelligencer, November 26, 1853. For a general discussion of life insurance and slaves, but not including policies taken out by slave traders, see Sharon A. Murphy, “Securing Human Property: Slavery, Life Insurance, and Industrialization in the Upper South,” Journal of the Early Republic 25 (Winter 2005): 615–652.
25. D. M. Pulliam & Co., circular, September 1, 1857, Bond Papers, NCSA.
26. Cambridge [Md.] Chronicle, February 1, 1834; Lexington Observer and Reporter, December 1, 1855; Cambridge [Md.] Chronicle, May 23, 1833. For a discussion of the role that merchants advertising cash played in promoting consumerism in the North, see Mary P. Ryan, Cradle of the Middle Class: The Family in Oneida County, New York, 1790–1865 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 9.
27. Centreville [Md.] Times and Eastern-Shore Public Advertiser, May 4, 1833; Missouri Democrat, July 28, 1854; Missouri Republican, January 23, 1852.
28. [Montgomery, Ala.] Confederation, August 31, 1859; [New Orleans] Daily Picayune, October 12, 1859; [Natchez] Mississippi Free Trader, February 1, 1859; [New Orleans] Delta, January 18, 1857.
29. [New Orleans] Daily Picayune, September 19, 1860, July 30, 1853, September 19, 1858, and January 14, 1857; [Nashville] Republican Banner, December 24, 1856.
30. Joseph Bryan to Ellison S. Keitt, April 20, 1860, Black History Collection, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. (hereafter cited as DLC); Ball, Slavery in the United States, 93; Douglass, “Speech of July 5, 1852,” in Frederick Douglass Papers, ed. John W. Blassingame, 5 vols. (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1979–1992), 2:374; Brown, Narrative of William W. Brown, 53.
31. John Brown, Slave Life in Georgia: A Narrative of the Life, Sufferings, and Escape of John Brown, a Fugitive Slave, ed. F. N. Boney (1855; repr., Savannah, Ga.: Beehive Press, 1972), 99; Ethan A. Andrews, Slavery and the Domestic Slave-Trade in the United States (Boston: Light and Stearns, 1836), 150; James H. Taylor to Franklin H. Elmore, January 30, 1836, Elmore Papers, DLC.
32. Elias W. Ferguson to [G. W. Eutsler], August 13, 1856, Ferguson Papers, NCSA; John W. Walker to Chapley R. Wellborne, September 20, 1818, Walker Papers, Alabama Department of Archives and History, Montgomery.
33. Memphis Avalanche, November 23, 1859; unknown New Orleans paper quoted in [Boston] Liberator, November 24, 1854; Moses handbill, November 14, 1859, reproduced in Bertram W. Korn, Jews and Negro Slavery in the Old South, 1789–1865 (Elkins Park, Pa.: Reform Congregation Keneseth Israel, 1961), 22; [Alexandria] Louisiana Democrat, November 16, 1859; [New Orleans] Daily Picayune, May 27, 1838.
34. Andrews, Domestic Slave-Trade, 136; Joseph H. Ingraham, The South-west, by a Yankee, 2 vols. (1835; repr., New York: Negro Universities Press, 1968), 2:245; William Chambers, Things as They Are in America (1854; New York: Negro Universities Press, 1968), 284–285; R. O. Harris to E. H. Stokes, December 20, 1862, Chase Papers, DLC; testimony of James K. Blakeney, Kock & McCall v. Slatter, no. 1748, 5 La. Ann. 739, (1850), University of New Orleans, Long Library.
35. Edward S. Abdy, Journal of a Residence and Tour in the United States of North America, from April, 1833, to October, 1834, 3 vols. (London: J. Murray, 1835), 2:180; Andrews, Domestic Slave-Trade, 150, 80.